Vergote v. K Mart Corp.
| Decision Date | 06 July 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 62258 |
| Citation | 336 N.W.2d 229,125 Mich.App. 48 |
| Parties | Leo VERGOTE and Elizabeth Vergote, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. K MART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. 125 Mich.App. 48, 336 N.W.2d 229 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[125 MICHAPP 49] Richard A. Smith, Livonia, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Faintuck, Shwedel, Wolfram & Braitman by William G. Wolfram, Franklin, for defendant-appellee on appeal.
Before MAHER, P.J., and BRONSON and CYNAR, JJ.
In the late 1960's plaintiff Leo Vergote and an investment partner purchased approximately 101 acres of land in Macomb County. In the mid-1970's Leonard Berman informed Mr. Vergote that he had a buyer for about 20 acres of the parcel. The land was to be the site of a new shopping center. Mr. Vergote understood that Mr. Berman represented Fred Gordon. Plaintiffs and Mr. Gordon executed an offer to purchase real estate on December 19, 1977, regarding 23 acres near Gratiot Avenue and 23 Mile Road. Because plaintiffs were selling only part of their land they insisted that the purchaser construct and dedicate for public use a new access road. There were three links in the proposed access road. The first link ran south from 23 Mile Road to the northeast corner of the development. The second link ran southwest from the northeast corner to the southeast corner of the development. This link ran directly behind the shopping center. The final link ran northwest to Gratiot Avenue. The offer to purchase real estate originally provided in paragraph 10 that the purchaser would construct this road and dedicate it to public use:
At the closing held on February 1, 1978, plaintiffs learned for the first time that defendant K Mart Corporation would be the ultimate purchaser of the property. They also learned that defendant was reluctant to construct the second portion of the proposed roadway because it was unimportant for defendant's purposes. Mr. Vergote continued to insist that he would not sell unless the purchaser constructed and dedicated the entire roadway and was concerned that defendant would be unable to dedicate the first and third links without the connecting road. At that time, defendant's representatives allayed his fears, Mr. Vergote reported in his deposition, by assuring him that they would do "whatever we have to do to get them dedicated even if it takes the loop road". The offer to purchase was amended, however, to eliminate defendant's obligation to construct and dedicate the access road:
So amended, the parties executed the offer to purchase.
The shopping center and the two side roads--the first and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vergote v. K Mart Corp.
...twenty-three acres of a 101-acre parcel of land owned by plaintiffs in Macomb County returns to us pursuant to Vergote v. K Mart, 125 Mich.App. 48, 336 N.W.2d 229 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1100.39 (1983). That opinion held that evidence of oral statements was admissible to determine the th......
-
Jenkins v. Haworth, Inc.
...Mich.App. 194, 198, 270 N.W.2d 738 (1978), rev on other grounds, 407 Mich. 407, 285 N.W.2d 770 (1979). Vergote v. K-Mart Corporation, 125 Mich. App. 48, 52, 336 N.W.2d 229, 230-231 (1983). Accord, In Re Bluestone Estate, 121 Mich. App. 659, 665, 329 N.W.2d 446 I do not find that Schipani v.......
-
Omega Const. Co., Inc. v. Murray
...as to the matters covered". NAG Enterprises, supra, p. 410, 285 N.W.2d 770. (Footnote omitted.) See also, Vergote v. K Mart Corp., 125 Mich.App. 48, 336 N.W.2d 229 (1983). The integration of the note is strongly contested by defendant here. The parties dispute the price agreed upon for comp......
-
United Precision Prods. Co. v. AVCO Corp.
...jury to decide whether the purchase orders constituted the parties' final and complete agreement. See Vergote v. K Mart Corp., 336 N.W.2d 229, 231 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (per curiam). See also Johnson Controls, 459 F.3d at 728-29 (holding that the district court properly allowed the plaintif......